Citizen Participation

Citizen participation in Arizona government is available in almost any form imaginable. For example, the City of Mesa's website states that any citizen "... can take an active role in shaping Mesa government policies, programs and decisions". Some examples of citizen participation listed on the website include voting in elections, volunteering for an advisory board, volunteering to help out in different city departments, speaking at council meetings, being a neighborhood representative, or even seeking elective office. With so many options, it is likely that an interested person would find at least one of them to be appealing. The City encourages such participation to ensure that any decisions they make will correctly reflect the will of the people. Additionally, having such participation can help to ensure that small groups with special interests do not make all the decisions that affect the entire community.

With the current economic situation, there is a vital need for citizen volunteers to support City programs. Individuals can volunteer at either of the City's museums, with the options of working in the museum store or leading guided tours of the facility. The libraries are always looking for volunteers to shelve books, staff the Friends of the Library book sale desk, or to deliver books to the homebound. The cemetery is looking for people to help with the maintenance of markers, the cleaning of vases, and arranging flowers. These are just a few of the opportunities available. There are so many more. According to Mesa's website, in 2007, volunteers provided almost 270,000 hours of service. Estimates are that the City saved more than $5,000,000 because of their help.

While volunteering is critical to the City, participation through advisory boards may be more so. Mesa's website lists more than 20 boards to choose from. These can vary from design review boards to personnel appeals boards. Citizens participating on the design review board can offer their opinions and recommendations based on their area of expertise, such as architecture, engineering, or contracting. Those on a personnel appeals board are expected to be objective third parties conducting hearings and making recommendations about employee disciplinary actions. These boards are important because the City needs checks and balances to ensure fair treatment both to its employees and citizens.

The article by Irvin and and Stansbury discussed the pro and cons of citizen participation. The point they are trying to make is that citizen participation isn't always the path to the best results. They list the advantages and disadvantages that are involved when citizens participate in policy-making endeavors. One of the advantages is the benefit of knowledge. As mentioned above, citizens can bring their specific knowledge, experience, and expertise to help governments make good decisions in the process of adopting laws, making budgetary decisions, or even in planning the design and location of a park. Another plus is the fact that participation brings ownership. When people are involved in the decision making process, they feel they have contributed to a satisfactory solution and are more likely to buy in to it. Also, and maybe most importantly, having citizen involvement keeps the lines of communication open. This prevents the appearance of secretive or dictatorial behavior.

Disadvantages are more related to appearance and opinion. Apathy is probably the worst. People simply don't believe that they have the authority to assist in any decisions, or that their opinion is important enough to count. Or maybe they feel that someone else will stand up for them. Also, if they don't believe that there is a concern, they just aren't interested enough to even take part. Another problem is dealing with special interest groups. They get a small following all whipped up about a specific subject, and then they dominate the debate and poor decisions may result. Another problem is cost and implementation of decisions. It may be that there is a difference between what the citizens want and what the City can afford. This problem can lead to disillusionment, which can result once again in apathy. Irvin and Stansbury identified some indicators that can help with making the decision whether to invite citizen participation or not. When citizens are involved, the authors stress the need for regular meeting, clear lines of authority, trust, and the availability of sufficient financial resources for implementation. If governments follow these recommendations, they have a good chance of success in their final decisions.

Public administrators need to be clear on the pros and cons of citizen participation, and to know how to deal with challenges as they occur. The ability to interact diplomatically with the public is a skill that should be sought by any who are interested in entering the public service.

References:

City of Mesa website: cityofmesa.org.

Irvin, R.A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? PAR, Vol 64, No 1, 55-65.

Abstract

With the advances in technology that have occurred over the last decade, governments are turning more and more to the internet as a way to serve and communicate with their citizens. The increased demand for responsible use of taxpayer funds has lead to a reduction in government employees. Government agencies are being told that they need to run leaner while still maintaining current levels and quality of service. Additionally, the general mistrust that government has always had to deal with has increased over recent years. One answer to these concerns has been for agency websites to move from strictly informational to include services as well. More customers can be served though the use of e-government using less resources. There is also a belief that having a reliable place to go for information, to have questions answered, and to pay bills or buy permits, will go a long way to reducing the mistrust of citizens towards their government.

Resources that may be used for this paper include: Various articles from the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Public Administration Review, and Political Science Quarterly, as well as others not yet identified.

WOW and 2nd Life

I have never participated in either of these games before. Between family, work, and school, I have never been able to find the time or the inclination. I have to say it was a very interesting experience.

It was easy to get started in 2nd life. I spent some time at the welcome island, and got familiar with how things worked. There were many different types of help available. I watched some interactive billboards, read different types of messages, and talked to others. After finding advertisements for different 'places', I tried teleporting to them. Some places were busier than others. The characters were very strange. Many players chose to have very different shapes. One person I saw was a huge balloon bunny in red, white, and blue. Very different! I was mostly ignored, and spent my time flying around and checking things out. I thought it was pretty boring.

It was also very easy to get started in World of Warcraft. I created my player, and selected a world. The game gave instructions and tips as you followed each step. I spent a little time familiarizing myself with how to talk to others and how to navigate my player. Then I just stated playing. I found someone who had a quest for me, and I used my map and the hints to figure out how to complete it. It was fun finding my way back and picking up another. I interacted with some other players, and had some fun exploring and using all the tools and items I was carrying.

Overall, I definitely preferred WOW, and I may even go back and play again, if I have time! I don't intend to ever go back to 2nd Life.

Possible Paper Topics

Digital Governance

Domestic E Government

E Communities/Competition

Favorite Line #2

The searchable is the part of your life that leaves, or is, a record. (Chapter 11, Privacy, p. 202)

We leave records everywhere we go. Our ancestors left us letters and pictures. We all buy possessions to surround ourselves with that make us happy or enhance our lives. We join different institutions which assign numbers to identify us such as banks, schools, libraries, museums, etc. We sign guest books at weddings and funerals. We sign our friends' yearbooks, and our family's birthday cards. We leave parts of ourselves all over like permanent fingerprints. It proves that we existed, we were there. I just liked the thought of continuity that this line evoked.

Favorite Line #1

We reveal to the world a certain class of data about ourselves that we ordinarily expect the world not to use. What happens when they use it? (Chapter 10, Intellectual Property, p. 191)

These lines caught my attention because we are in a world that revolves around data. We give information out for one reason, and businesses are asking for it for another. One example is your shopper's card that you use at the local grocery store. You want to get one in order to take advantage of all the great savings, they want you to get one so they can learn about your buying habits. Do we think about how they are going to use the data that they are gathering? How many people actually consider that question? I don't have the data to answer that but I could start gathering it...

Analysis

"Sharing 2999 Songs, 199 Movies Becomes 'Safe' in Germany"
By enigmax
August 14, 2008
TorrentFreak

This article addresses the German music industry's concern about copyright infringement due to file-sharing. File-sharing refers to the transfer of digital files though a network. One of the most common ways to do this is using a peer-to-peer (P2P) network. Examples of P2P's include Limewire or Napster. To stop this activity, the industry has been threatening legal action against any offenders that have been identified for them by anti-P2P tracking organizations such as Logistep AG and Digiprotect. According to the article, in many cases the legal action is not carried out, but used as leverage to get the offenders to pay for the downloaded files. Prosecutors in the Nort-Rhine Westphalia area are being overloaded with these cases. Their solution has been to refuse to prosecute any cases where less than 3000 songs or 200 movies have been shared.

The issues in conflict here are music industry revenue losses vs. the freedom of sharing music or movies purchased for personal use. The music industry is concerned that if people can get songs for free on the internet, they won't buy cd's, and they will go out of business. They are fighting for their livelihood. On the other hand, people who have purchased the music and just want to share it with their friends don't see the problem.

An alternative way to deal with this issue could be for the music industry to market a non-copiable cd/dvd for a lower price, and raise the price of the one without copy restrictions. Customers may be willing to buy the cheaper cd and avoid the threat of legal action for having too many files-share files on their computer. Those who still want to share their music can pay the higher price. In chapter seven of Code 2.0, Lessig describes this as an example of using the market and architecture constraints to regulate behavior.

The difference in value or issue conflicts are the same in both solutions. The music industry wants to protect it revenue stream, and it uses copyright law to do so. On the other hand, customers who have legitimately bought music and want to share it for personal use only, feel they should have a right to do so. Who is wrong? I don't agree that any copyright law has been violated if a purchased cd is shared with friends or family. I do agree that commercial use of the cd should be prosecuted as a violation. Wiser heads than mine have been debating this problem for years, and the 'right' solution has yet to have been discovered. We will just have to watch and see how this plays out.

Agree

I agree with Jessica Jenkins' response to the Malone reading in regards to the drawbacks of technology versus face-to-face communication. We have all taken classes in communication and have learned about all the visual and aural clues underlying the message being communicated. Our language is rich with volume and tone, facial movements, and gestures. An email could never replicate that, and can easily be taken the wrong way or be misinterpreted without such clues. We all know that video conferencing and web cams can give you images and sound, but these tools are not really a replacement for personal interaction. Jessica sums it up nicely by stating that "...communication technology can lead to more choices, but should not be a substitute for face-to-face interaction."

Disagree

I agree with the spirit of David Walker's response to the Malone reading, but I have to disagree with his definition of freedom. Freedom is exactly what it says it is - the ability to do whatever you want. Most of us are constrained by society to stay within certain boundaries. Clearly our success as a society reflects that most of us respect social mores, family teachings, and the threat of punishment. Our constitutionally protected freedoms are what we fought and died for, and I for one would not like to see them taken away. However, as the examples in Lessig's book show, the internet is an outlet for those who can anonymously exercise their freedom to engage in aberrant behavior. I would venture to say that we in this class are responsible and exercise our freedom wisely without infringing on others while continuing to provide excellent service to the public.

Malone Reading

Malone's views on the movement from decentralization, to centralization, and back are very interesting. He suggests that the decreasing cost of communications is the common thread. While I agree with the possibility, I think it is too simplistic. He asks why there was no change for thousands of years, and then in 200 years radical changes occurred. This same argument could be applied to the industrial revolution. Why did we struggle for so long and then within a short period move to machines and mass production? Malone touches on the conquering and assimilation of many societies, which has been a recurring theme in the history of man. But why did the conquered not simply run off and reform their bands? Because they had left their hunting and gathering and tied themselves to the land. Their choices were to assimilate or abandon their livelihoods. Those in power knew this, and were able to use their military power to increase the boundaries of their kingdoms. What choice would we make if confronted with this decision?

So why should this movement towards centralization be tied to communication costs? People naturally congregated together in areas conducive to the lifestyle they chose. Also, as Malone mentioned, people developed specializations that were desired by others. It was easier for groups to live together and share their knowledge and abilities with each other. Eventually, this led to the realizations that larger groups were safer and better able to fight off aggressive neighbors. Eventually, leaders will emerge when large groups form, and power is willingly surrendered to the one who is willing to take all the responsibility and stress. As we all know, power can corrupt, and in many cases those who were in charge became greedy and felt that they had the right to take more than they deserved because they were the hard working protectors of the group. With the pattern established, it became easy for those in power to find those of like mind to join them and to help them become dictators and rulers.

That being said, I can see how falling communication costs gave people the opportunity to educate themselves and to encourage others to do the same. As awareness of abuses of power became more apparent, some people would have communicated this information to others and encouraged revolt. Clearly that has happened successfully in our history, and could be attributed to a greater ease of mass communication. As I sad in the beginning, I believe that lower communication cost played a part, but I don't believe that it is the sole factor.